Amendment 0002.pdf

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT J 1 2

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

AM0002 26 Apr 2021

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

NAVFAC Hawaii Construction Acquisition Division (OPHA2) 400 Marshall Road See Item 6 Pearl Harbor, Hawaii 96860-3139

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State, and Zip Code) X 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

N62478-20-R-4044

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

7 Apr 2021

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

[ X ]The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers [ ] is extended, [ X ] is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning __1__ copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) NA

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

(x) A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF: FAR CLAUSE 52.243-4, CHANGES

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor [ ] is not, [ ] is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

N62478-20-R-4044, DESIGN-BUILD/DESIGN-BID-BUILD WATERFRONT MULTIPLE AWARD

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (DB/DBB WF MACC), VARIOUS LOCATIONS, STATE OF HAWAII

AND WAKE ISLAND

(See page 2 )

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE

30-105 STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

AM0002

SF30, BLOCK 14 CONTINUED

1. Attached hereto are new and revised pages to the solicitation. Revised pages replace like numbered pages. The revision mark “AMENDMENT 0002” is shown on each new and revised page.

a. REVISED SECTIONS/CLAUSES/PROVISIONS/PAGES/PARAGRAPHS. The following are revised items to the solicitation. Changes are in bold print.

Document 00110 Evaluation Factors for Award Document 00800 Special Contract Requirements Document 00900 Appendix B Responses to Questions Submitted by Planholders

2. The date for receipt of proposals is May 7, 2021 2:00 P.M., HST.

Document 00110

Amendment 0002

DOCUMENT 00110

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

DOCUMENT 00110

EVALUATION FACTORS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I. GENERAL

1.1 CONTRACT SCOPE

1.2 PREFERENCE FOR MAKING MULTIPLE AWARDS

1.3 MAGNITUDE OF THE ACQUISITION

1.4 PROPOSAL EVALUATION

1.5 ENFORCEABILITY OF THE PROPOSAL

PART II. EVALUATION CRITERIA

2.1 BASIS OF AWARD

2.2 EVALUATION FACTORS

ATTACHMENTS

(A) – CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN EXPERIENCE PROJECT DATA SHEET

(B) – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

(C) – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION AND COMMITMENT STRATEGY

(D) – SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN – DO NOT SUBMIT WITH

YOUR PHASE 2 PROPOSAL. TO BE SUBMITTED UPON REQUEST BY THE

CONTRACTING OFFICER.

EVALUATION FACTORS

PART I – GENERAL

1.1 CONTRACT SCOPE

The work includes, but is not limited to labor, supervision, tools, materials and equipment necessary to perform new construction, reconstruction rehabilitation, and/or repairs to piers/wharves; waterfront facilities such as warehouses and drydocks; bridges; site improvements; utilities; maintenance and construction dredging; and other incidental work. The work may involve design-build or design-bid-build projects. Work may encounter hazardous materials. Implement NPDES and Department of Army permit requirements and all applicable Federal, State and local environmental regulations.

Drydock work may include, but is not limited to repairs to, the caisson; drydock concrete structure repairs; repairs or replacement of piping; repairs of replacement to pumps and motors;

electrical; mechanical and other incidental work. Repairs to caisson and other Shipyard facilities may require conformance to NAVSEA requirements.

Dredging work includes, but is not limited to maintenance and or construction dredging and ocean and/or upland disposal of dredge materials.

Other waterfront facilities new construction or repairs include, but is not limited to storage/staging facilities; warehouses, office buildings, and other facilities necessary to support naval operations. Work may include but not limited to, reinforced concrete; precast prestressed concrete; steel; fire alarm and sprinklers; plumbing; air conditioning and ventilation; electrical and other incidental work.

Site work includes, but is not limited to asphalt concrete pavement; reinforced concrete pavement; fresh and salt water distribution; drainage; compressed air; sanitary sewage; fuel distribution piping; chain link fence and gates; selective demolition and removal work, and other incidental work.

Bridge repair work may include, but not limited to, repairs or reconstruction of concrete, wood or steel bridges; piles and other incidental work.

The vast majority of projects will be located within the State of Hawaii. There may or may not be projects on Wake Island.

1.2 PREFERENCE FOR MAKING MULTIPLE AWARDS

This acquisition is being advertised on an unrestricted basis and is a source selection procurement requiring non-cost/price, past performance and price proposals. This procurement consists of one (1) solicitation with the intent to award multiple Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite

Quantity (IDIQ) contracts. The Government intends to award a minimum of two (2) IDIQ contracts.

1.3 MAGNITUDE OF THE ACQUISITION

The total maximum dollar value of this acquisition is $995,000,000 for all contracts over the life of the contracts or 60 months, whichever occurs first. The minimum guarantee for the base period only will be $25,000. The minimum guarantee may be met by the issuance of a task order during the base period or option period(s). The task order minimum and maximum will be stated as $5,000,000 to $200,000,000, respectively.

1.4 PROPOSAL EVALUATION

a. This is a two-phase procurement. In Phase 1 of the two-phase selection procedure, the Offerors will submit and the Government will evaluate Factors 1 through 4 (see paragraph 2.2).

The Government will then short list a maximum of five (5) of the most highly rated and qualified Phase 1 Offerors to compete for the Design-Build/Design-Bid-Build Waterfront Multiple Award Construction Contracts (DB/DBB WF MACC) in Phase 2. Factor 1 will only be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable. If an Offeror is rated Unacceptable in Factor 1, they will not be considered for Phase 2.

b. In Phase 2 of the two-phase selection procedure, the short-listed offerors will submit Factors 5, 6, and price (see paragraph 2.2). Factor 5 and Factor 6 will only be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable. If an Offeror is rated Unacceptable in Factor 5 and/or Factor 6, they will be ineligible for award and would require correction through discussions before being considered for award of a contract. In making the best value award decision after Phase 2, the Government will consider the evaluated ratings for Factors 2, 3, 4, and price.

c. The Government intends to evaluate all proposals received and award multiple contracts without conducting discussions; therefore, your initial proposal shall conform to the solicitation requirements and should contain the best offer. However, the Government reserves the right to clarify certain aspects of the proposals, or may conduct discussions if it is deemed necessary to obtain the best value for the Government.

d. If discussions are deemed necessary to maximize the Government’s ability to obtain the best value, discussions will be held with those Offerors within the competitive range. The Government may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals, considering price and technical merit.

e. Any proposal found to have a deficiency in meeting the stated solicitation requirements or performance objectives will be considered ineligible for award, unless the deficiency is corrected through discussions. Significant weaknesses or multiple weaknesses may impact either the individual factor rating or the overall rating for the proposal. Any proposal with a rating that is less than Acceptable for a factor will require correction before being considered for award of a contract.

f. The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contracts.

g. The distinction between experience and past performance is experience pertains to the types of work and volume of work completed by a contractor that are comparable to the types of work covered by this requirement, in terms of size, scope, and complexity. Past performance pertains to both the relevance of recent efforts and how well a contractor has performed on the contracts.

1.5 ENFORCEABILITY OF THE PROPOSAL

The proposals must set forth full, accurate and complete information as required by this solicitation. The Government will rely on such information in the award of the contracts. By submission of the offer, the Offeror agrees that all items proposed (e.g., key personnel, designers, subcontractors, etc.) will be utilized for the duration of the contract and any substitutions will be equal or better than as proposed and accepted for contract award and shall require prior Contracting Officer's approval.

PART II – EVALUATION CRITERIA

2.1 BASIS OF AWARD

The Government intends to award multiple IDIQ type contracts to those responsible Offerors whose offers, conforming to the solicitation, are determined to be the most advantageous to the Government considering non-cost/price factors, past performance and price. The relative order of importance of the non-cost/price evaluation factors is that technical factors are equal to each other and when combined are of equal importance to the performance confidence assessment (past performance). The combined non-cost/price factors are significantly more important than price. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror(s) whose offer conforms to the solicitation and represents the best value to the Government, price and non-cost/price factors considered. In determining the best value to the Government, the Government need not quantify the tradeoffs that led to the best value decision. The Government also reserves the right to cancel the solicitation if only one (1) proposal is determined to represent the most advantageous proposal.

2.2 EVALUATION FACTORS

Non-Cost/Price Evaluation Factors:

Phase 1:

Factor 1 – Technical Approach Factor 2 – Experience Factor 3 – Past Performance Factor 4 – Safety

Phase 2:

Factor 5 – Technical Solution

Factor 6 – Small Business Utilization

Price (for the seed project which may or may not be awarded). Project Title: To be identified in Phase 2.

Price proposal will consist of lump sum pricing for the seed project. The total price proposed will be evaluated to ensure fair and reasonable pricing.

a. NON-COST/PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS

Factor 1 – Technical Approach:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The composition and management of the firms proposed as the design-build team for this contract will be evaluated in this factor.

The Offeror shall submit the following information:

(1) Provide a narrative describing the proposed primary construction firms and primary design firms for this contract and the rationale for proposing this arrangement (Offeror’s team).

Provide the role, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between the various firms (see FAR Subpart 9.6). The narrative shall also include a simple organizational chart that clearly identifies the lines of authority between the entities. If the experience of an entity is being claimed in Factor 2, that entity must be named in the above narrative and organizational chart.

The technical approach narrative shall be Arial 11 font (minimum) and limited to one (1) double-sided 8.5” x 11” page (or two (2) single-sided 8.5” x 11” pages) including the organizational chart. The information requested in item #2 below is not included in this page limitation.

(2) In addition to the narrative, the Offeror shall submit a signed copy of their applicable joint venture (JV) agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, approved mentor protégé agreement (MPA), or letter of commitment for each member of the Offeror’s team identified above (e.g., JV member, partner, team member, subcontractor, parent company, subsidiary, or other affiliated company, etc.). If the Offeror’s proposed Designer of Record (DOR) is a JV, the Offeror shall submit a JV agreement or a letter of commitment from the applicable designers of the JV. Failure to do so will deem your proposal unacceptable. If only a letter of commitment is initially submitted, the Offeror shall submit a copy of the JV agreement within 30 days of award.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The assessment of the Offeror’s technical approach will be used as a means to evaluate the organizational structure and teaming relationships proposed by the Offeror. This factor will be rated on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis.

Factor 2 – Experience:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit the following information:

(1) Construction Experience:

Submit a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) relevant construction projects in which the Offeror was the Prime Contractor that best demonstrates the Offeror’s experience on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the Request for Proposal (RFP). Out of the minimum of three (3) and maximum of five (5) construction projects, at least two (2) projects shall be new construction and one (1) project shall be repair/alteration or related demolition of existing infrastructure. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is defined as new construction and/or repair, alteration and related demolition of existing infrastructure completed within the past ten (10) years of the proposal issue date for this RFP.

“Infrastructure” is defined as 1) piers/wharves/caissons; 2) waterfront facilities such as warehouses and drydocks; 3) bridges; 4) site improvements; 5) utilities; 6) maintenance and construction dredging; and 7) other incidental work. “New Construction” is defined as construction that provides for new or expanded facilities or infrastructure. New construction does not include repair and/or modernization of an existing facility, nor does it include replacement or upgrade to an existing infrastructure. The Offeror must have been a Prime Contractor for the projects and each project shall be $5,000,000 or more in dollar value.

A project is defined as a construction project performed under a single task order or contract.

For multiple award and IDIQ type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project; rather Offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

The attached Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment A) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. If the same project is being used to demonstrate construction and design experience, submit separate Project Data Sheets for construction and for design. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form. Do not alter the Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment A) with the exception of expanding the individual blocks on this form; however, total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed one (1) double-sided 8.5” x 11” page (or two (2) single-sided 8.5” x 11” pages) and shall be Arial 11 font (minimum).

For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP (i.e.: unique features, area, construction methods). The description shall identify which type of infrastructure each submitted project represents. In addition, the description should also address any sustainable features for the project, including specific descriptions of those features. Provide applicable documentation on projects that were validated and/or certified through U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) or the equivalent organization or process. The validation or certification documentation will not be included in the page limitation of the Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment A). Also, the description should address features detailing how the work was completed in accordance with the "Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.”

If the Offeror is a JV or a participant of the Small Business Administration (SBA) Mentor- Protégé Program, relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the JV entity or SBA Mentor-Protégé as the prime contractor. If the JV or SBA Mentor-Protégé does not have shared experience, relevant projects shall be submitted for each JV partner or for the Mentor and for the Protégé for which they were prime contractors. At least one (1) project from each JV partner, or at least one (1) project from the Mentor and one (1) project from the Protégé, shall be submitted. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined.

If an Offeror is utilizing experience information of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies (name is not exactly as stated on the SF1442) for this evaluation factor, the proposal shall clearly demonstrate the extent of the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm involvement in the performance of the contract; and shall only be for those projects for which the affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies were prime contractors. In demonstrating construction experience for this factor, no more than two (2) projects shall be submitted from affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies. More weight may be given to the Offeror’s projects than to those submitted for affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/ LLC/LTD member companies.

The Offeror may utilize experience of a subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement to demonstrate construction experience under this evaluation factor. The Offeror must provide a letter of commitment and an explanation of the involvement the subcontractor will have in performance of this contract. In demonstrating construction experience for this factor, no more than two (2) projects shall be submitted from subcontractors.

Projects utilizing experience of subcontractors shall only be for those projects for which the subcontractor was the prime contractor. More weight may be given to the Offeror’s projects than to those submitted for subcontractors.

(2) Design Experience

Submit a minimum of three (3) and maximum of five (5) recent relevant design projects for the designer of record (Lead A-E that coordinates, facilitates and stamps the overall project) that best demonstrates design experience on recent relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RFP. For purposes of this evaluation, a recent relevant project is defined as design of new and/or repair and alteration of existing infrastructure. “Infrastructure” is defined as 1) piers/wharves/caissons; 2) waterfront facilities such as warehouses and drydocks; 3) bridges; 4) site improvements; 5) utilities; 6) maintenance and construction dredging; and 7) other incidental work. “New Construction” is defined as construction that provides for new or expanded facilities or infrastructure. New construction does not include repair and/or modernization of an existing facility, nor does it include replacement or upgrade to an existing infrastructure. A-E design experience is on construction projects valued at $5,000,000 or more.

The designs for all recent relevant design projects submitted shall be completed within the past ten (10) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.

For design-build projects, the design portion of the contract shall have been completed within the past ten (10) years of the date of issuance of this RFP. The Offeror shall ensure that all dates on Attachment A (Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet) and Attachment B (NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire) are consistent.

A project is defined as a complete design effort performed under a single task order or contract/subcontract. For multiple award and IDIQ type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project; rather Offerors shall submit the work performed under a single task order as a project.

Only one (1) DOR will be permitted. Proposals with more than one DOR will not be considered.

The attached Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment A) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. If the same project is being used to demonstrate construction and design experience, submit separate Project Data Sheets for construction and for design. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form. Do not alter the Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment A) with the exception of expanding the individual blocks on this form; however, total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed one (1) double-sided 8.5” x 11” page (or two (2) single-sided 8.5” x 11” pages) and shall be Arial 11 font (minimum).

For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP (i.e.: unique features, area, construction methods). The description shall identify which type of infrastructure each submitted project represents. In addition, the description should also address any sustainable features for the project, including specific descriptions of those features. Provide applicable documentation on projects that were validated and/or certified through USGBC or the equivalent organization or process. The validation or certification documentation will not be included in the page limitation of the Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment A).

Also, the description should address features detailing how the work was completed in accordance with the "Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.”

If the DOR is a JV or a participant of SBA Mentor-Protégé Program, relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the JV entity or SBA Mentor-Protégé as the DOR.

If the JV or SBA Mentor-Protégé does not have shared experience, relevant projects shall be submitted for each JV partner or for the Mentor and Protégé as the DOR. Offerors who fail to submit experience for all JV partners or both Mentor and Protégé may be rated lower. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined.

If a DOR is utilizing experience information of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies (name is not exactly as stated on the SF1442), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate the extent of the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm involvement in the performance of the contract.

Projects for which experience of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies are being used to demonstrate experience shall be for projects where affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies were lead designers or DORs. In demonstrating design experience for this factor, no more than two (2) projects shall be submitted from affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies. More weight may be given to the DOR’s projects than to those submitted for affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies.

The DOR may utilize experience of a design subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement to demonstrate design experience under this evaluation factor. The DOR must provide a supporting JV agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, or letter of commitment that the design subcontractor will have significant involvement in performance of the major or critical aspects of this contract. Projects utilizing the experience of design subcontractors shall be for those projects that the design subcontractors were lead designers or DORs. Projects where the design subcontractor was not the DOR will not be considered. In demonstrating design experience for this factor, no more than two (2) projects shall be submitted from design subcontractors. More weight may be given to the Offeror’s projects than to those submitted for design subcontractors.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The basis of evaluation will include the Offeror’s demonstrated experience and depth of experience in performing relevant construction and design projects as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements. The assessment of the Offeror’s relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. The Government will only review the first five (5) projects for construction and the first five (5) projects for design, in the order they were submitted in the proposal. Any projects submitted in excess of the first five (5) for Construction Experience and first five (5) for Design Experience will not be considered.

Proposals that do not contain any projects that demonstrate experience for the Offeror or its DOR will not be considered.

Relevant projects where the Offeror and the proposed lead design firm previously worked together may be considered more favorably than those that have not worked together.

Relevant projects that demonstrate design-build experience may be considered more favorably than those that do not have design-build experience.

Relevant projects that demonstrate experience with sustainable features that have received final certification by the date of issuance of this RFP may be considered more favorably than those that do not demonstrate experience with sustainable features. Projects that have not received final certification by the date of issuance of this RFP may be considered for experience, but will not be considered to demonstrate experience with sustainability.

Relevant projects that the JV entity or SBA Mentor-Protégé completed together may be considered more favorably than those projects that were completed by only one JV partner, Mentor, or Protégé.

Relevant projects where the Offeror performed major or critical aspects of the project may be considered more favorably than major or critical aspects of the project performed by a subcontractor.

Relevant projects where the Offeror’s DOR performed major or critical aspects of the project may be considered more favorably than major or critical aspects of the project performed by a design subcontractor.

Recent relevant projects submitted by the Offeror as a prime contractor may be considered more favorably than recent relevant projects submitted using a subcontractor’s or affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member company’s experience.

Recent relevant projects submitted by the Offeror’s DOR may be considered more favorably than recent relevant projects submitted using a design subcontractor’s or affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member company’s experience.

Factor 3 – Past Performance:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

If a completed Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS)/Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 2 for construction experience. If a completed AE Contractor Appraisal Support System (ACASS)/CPARS evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 2 for design experience. If a completed CCASS, ACASS, or CPARS evaluation is not available for a project that was submitted under Factor 2, the Offeror shall submit Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment B) for that project. Evidence of customer satisfaction shall be from the owner and/or their representative responsible for the construction contract administration of construction projects or design administration of design projects. For construction contractors, it shall not be from the designer on a design-build project, nor shall it be from a prime construction contractor for a subcontractor. For design firms, it shall not be from the construction contractor on a design-build project, nor shall it be from prime consultant to a subconsultant or from a subconsultant to a prime consultant. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, previously completed PPQs in full text submitted for other RFPs will be accepted. Previously completed PPQs do not need to be identical to Attachment B, but they must include all information requested in Attachment B in order to be accepted. All PPQs shall be complete, contain client’s signature, and include all information requested in Attachment B, NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ-0) located the end of Document 00110. This does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to help ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Ms. Kris Nakashima, kris.nakashima@navy.mil.

Offerors shall provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Factor 2 – Experience. Offerors shall also address any adverse past performance issues. Explanations shall be Arial 11 font (minimum) and shall not exceed two (2) double-sided 8.5” x 11” pages (or four (4) single-sided 8.5” x 11” pages) in total.

The Government reserves the right to contact references for verification or additional information. The Government’s inability to contact any of the Offeror’s references or the references unwillingness to provide the information requested may affect the Government’s evaluation of this factor.

Performance award or additional information submitted will not be considered.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

This evaluation focuses on how well the Offeror’s team performed on the relevant projects submitted under Factor 2 – Experience and may also consider past performance on other relevant projects, interim and/or final, currently documented in known sources. In addition to the above, the Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources including sources outside of the Government. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of Contractors who are part of a partnership or JV identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

The Government may consider the currency and relevance of the information, the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends, interim and/or final, in the Contractor’s performance. This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination. The assessment of the Offeror’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the Offeror’s team’s probability to successfully meet the requirements of the

RFP.

More weight may be given to the Offeror’s (construction) projects and its DOR’s (design) projects than for those submitted for affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies and/or from construction subcontractors and design subcontractors.

Offerors lacking relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably in past performance and will receive a NEUTRAL Confidence rating.

Factor 4 – Safety

(a) Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit the following information: The Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate; and Total Case Rate (TCR) for the specified five (5) Calendar Years (CY), as well as a safety narrative, as described further below. For a partnership or joint venture, the Offeror shall submit separate DART rates and TCR for the specified five (5) CY for each contractor who is part of the partnership/joint venture; however, only one safety narrative is required. Any fatalities experienced within this 5-year timeframe must be explained in detail, to include root cause and corrective actions.

NOTE: DART and TCR shall not be submitted for subcontractors

1. DART Rate: Submit five (5) previous complete calendar years’ [CY2020, CY2019, CY2018, CY2017, and CY2016] worth of data (not an overall average). If the Offeror has no DART rate, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why. Should a negative trend occur above moderate risk levels, an acceptable/detailed explanation is required that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

a. DART cases include injuries or illnesses resulting in death, days away from work, and/or restricted work or transfer to another job days beyond the day of injury/illness.

b. Calculation of DART rate: Multiply the total number of DART cases by 200,000, and then divide by the number of employee labor hours worked.

𝐷𝐴𝑅𝑇 𝑅𝐴𝑇𝐸 =

Number of DART Incidents x 200,000

Total Number of Employee Labor Hours Worked

2. TCR Rate: Submit five (5) previous complete calendar years’ [CY2020, CY2019, CY2018, CY2017, and CY2016] worth of data (not an overall average). If the Offeror has no TCR rate, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why. Should a negative trend occur above moderate risk levels, an acceptable/detailed explanation is required that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

a. TCR cases include injuries or illnesses resulting in death, days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job days beyond the day of injury/illness, medical treatment beyond first aid, or loss of consciousness.

b. Calculation of TCR rate: Multiply the total number of TCR incidents by 200,000, and then divide by the number of employee labor hours worked.

𝑻𝑪𝑹 𝑹𝑨𝑻𝑬 =

Number of TCR Incidents x 200,000

Total Number of Employee Labor Hours Worked

3. Technical Approach to Safety: Submit a narrative that addresses the following:

a. Describe the Offeror’ s approach to implementing and executing a Safety Management System (SMS) including Management/Leadership involvement, Employee involvement, Hazard prevention, Hazard control, Worksite analysis, and Safety and health training, to include the standard(s) used to benchmark the SMS.

b. Describe the evaluation process used to select potential subcontractors.

c. Describe the processes of how the Offeror will oversee safety compliance of subcontractors at all levels throughout performance of the contract (to include the Offeror’s own in-house workforce).

d. The Technical Approach to Safety narrative shall be Arial 11 font (minimum) limited to two (2) single-sided pages or one (1) double-sided page,

4. The Government reserves the right to review other available sources (public/Government internal) of information. These may include but are not limited to OSHA data, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS), CPARS, Electronic Contract Management System (eCMS), etc.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government is seeking to determine that the Offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to safety and that the Offeror plans to properly manage and implement safety procedures for itself and its subcontractors. The evaluation will collectively consider the DART rate, TCR, Technical Approach to Safety, and other sources of information available to the Government as part of such collective evaluation. The board will evaluate the DART rates and TCR to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any negative trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rating.

1. DART Rate: The board will evaluate trends over the last five years considering changes that take it from one risk level (or more) to the next up or down. Negative trends occurring above moderate risk levels require the offeror to provide a detailed explanation that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

a. Missing data without an explanation is considered a deficiency.

b. Declining trends that push the risk levels from Moderate Risk (MR) or higher to Low Risk (LR) or Very Low Risk (VLR) would indicate a strength.

c. An increasing DART rate trend could be considered a weakness (i.e. MR or better to High Risk (HR) or Extremely High Risk EHR)) if an acceptable explanation is not provided for any trends that rise above Moderate.

d. This chart correlates the DART rate to the level of risk:

Risk DART Rate Very Low Risk Less Than 1.0 Low Risk From 1.0 to 1.99 Moderate Risk From 2.0 to 2.99 High Risk From 3.0 to 4.0 Extremely High Risk Greater than 4.0

2. TCR Rate: The board will evaluate trends over the last five years considering changes that take it from one risk level (or more) to the next up or down. Negative trends occurring above moderate risk levels require the offeror to provide a detailed explanation that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

a. Missing data without an explanation is considered a deficiency.

b. Declining trends that push the risk levels from Moderate Risk (MR) or higher to Low Risk (LR) or Very Low Risk (VLR) would indicate a strength.

c. An increasing TCR rate trend could be considered a weakness (i.e. MR or better to High Risk (HR) or Extremely High Risk EHR)) if an acceptable explanation is not provided for any trends that rise above Moderate.

d. This chart correlates the TCR rate to the level of risk:

Risk TCR Rate Very Low Risk Less Than 2.49 Low Risk From 2.5 to 3.49 Moderate Risk From 3.5 to 4.49 High Risk From 4.5 to 5.99 Extremely High Risk Greater than 6.0

3. The Technical Approach to Safety Narrative. To determine the degree, including but not limited to, innovative methods, to which the Offeror:

a. Describes a viable SMS that addresses elements; such as Management/Leadership involvement, Employee involvement, Hazard prevention, Hazard control, Worksite analysis, and Safety and health training, to include the standard(s) used to benchmark the SMS.

b. Describes a methodical process of evaluating subcontractor’s safety performance in their selection process.

c. Describes a logical management plan to hold themselves and their subcontractors accountable for adhering to the safety requirements of the contract.

d. The Technical Approach to Safety narrative shall be Arial 11 font (minimum) limited to two (2) single-sided pages or one (1) double-sided page. Information on pages beyond this will not be considered.

4. The Government reserves the right to review other available sources (public/Government internal) of information. These may include but are not limited to OSHA data, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS), CPARS, Electronic Contract Management System (eCMS), etc.

Factor 5 – Technical Solution

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Provide a narrative describing the technical solution to the project that meets the requirements of the RFP. Include the following:

- Interior circulation/adjacencies

- Exterior façade describing how the proposed construction integrates with the surrounding area and existing base facilities design or architectural theme.

- Site layout including a description of the building orientation, roadways, parking (include ingress and egress), emergency vehicle access, and ATFP standoff distances. Also include in the narrative a description of the general concept proposed to meet low impact development (LID).

Narrative shall not exceed three (3) double-sided 8.5” x 11” pages (or six (6) single-sided pages) 8.5” x 11” pages in length, Arial 11 font (minimum). Up to three (3) conceptual drawings may be provided to supplement the narrative (i.e., floor plan, exterior elevation, and site plan).

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate the narrative and conceptual drawings (if included) considering the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the architectural and engineering requirements of the project. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's technical solution to determine adherence to the technical requirements of the RFP, contained in the Specifications. This factor will be rated on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis.

Factor 6 – Small Business Utilization

It is the policy of the Government to provide maximum practicable opportunities in its acquisitions to small business (SB) concerns, including veteran-owned small business (VOSB), service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), historically underutilized business zone (HUBZone) small business, small disadvantaged business (SDB), and women-owned small business (WOSB) and other small business concerns. Further, it is the policy of the Government that such concerns will have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in contract performance consistent with its efficient performance.

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

All Offerors (both large and small businesses) shall use Attachment C, Small Business Participation and Commitment Strategy to submit the following requested information for evaluation of this factor:

- To demonstrate commitment to use small business concerns in the performance of this contract, identify all planned subcontractors by name that will be used to support each specific small business category (i.e., SB, HUBZone SB, WOSB, SDB, VOSB, and SDVOSB). Identify the type of product/service to be subcontracted, the estimated subcontract value, and the type of commitment (i.e., teaming agreement, letter of commitment, etc.) to each subcontractor.

- To demonstrate maximum practicable participation of small businesses, identify (in terms of dollar value and percentage of the total contract value) the offeror’s total proposed small business participation (i.e. work to be performed by small business as the prime contractor and/or work to be performed by small business subcontractors). All offerors who are not able to meet the minimum total small business participation rate (20% of the total contract value) shall provide a detailed explanation why the minimum total small business participation rate cannot be achieved.

If the offeror does not intend to subcontract, provide a detailed explanation why subcontracting would not result in efficient contract performance.

Note: A large business offeror selected for award shall be required to submit an acceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Attachment D) incorporating the proposed subcontract values and small business concerns that are specifically identified in the offeror’s Small Business Participation and Commitment Strategy. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall aspire to meet the NAVFAC small business subcontracting goals stated below.

The NAVFAC subcontracting targets for FY21 are as follows:

Small Business 68.50% Historically Underutilized Business Zone 18.55% Small Disadvantaged Business 50.00% Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business 4.50% Woman Owned Small Business 9.00%

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

This factor will be rated on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Small Business Participation and Commitment Strategy to determine that the offeror has identified and demonstrated a commitment to use small business concerns in one or more small business categories (i.e., SB, HUBZone SB, WOSB, SDB, VOSB, and SDVOSB) in the performance of this contract.

- Proposals that fail to identify and commit to use small business concerns in the performance of this contract may be rated Unacceptable; however, the Government may take into account reasonable explanations why subcontracting would not result in efficient contract performance.

The Government will also evaluate the small business participation and commitment strategy to determine that the offeror has demonstrated the maximum practicable participation of small businesses by meeting or exceeding the solicitation’s minimum total small business participate rate (i.e. work to be performed by small business as the prime contractor and/or work to be performed by small business subcontractors). The minimum total small business participation rate for this acquisition is 20% of the total contract value.

- Large business offerors may achieve the minimum total small business participation rate through subcontracting to small businesses.

- Small business offerors may achieve the minimum total small business participation rate through their own performance/participation as a prime and also through a joint venture, teaming arrangement, and/or subcontracting to other small businesses.

- Proposals that fail to demonstrate a total small business participation rate of at least 20% may be rated Unacceptable; however, the Government may take into account reasonable explanations why the minimum total small business participation rate cannot be achieved.

b. PRICE EVALUATION

PRICE PROPOSAL FOR THE SEED PROJECT (which may or may not be awarded) - Project Title: To be identified in Phase 2.

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

With regards to price, Offerors shall complete the Proposal Schedule line item for the seed project (which may or may not be awarded).

BASIS OF EVALUATION

The price proposal for the seed project (which may or may not be awarded) will be evaluated to determine the reasonableness of the Offeror’s proposal. One (1) or more of the following techniques will be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation.

Comparison of proposed prices with the independent Government estimate.

Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information.

Comparison of information reports obtained from Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) or other outside agencies as required.

A price that is found to be unreasonably high in relation to the proposed work may be indicative of an inherent lack of understanding of the solicitation requirements and may result in the overall proposal not being considered for award.

The importance of price will increase if the Offerors’ non-cost/price proposals are considered essentially equal in terms of overall quality, or if price is so high as to significantly diminish the value of a non-cost/price proposal’s superiority to the Government. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror(s) whose offer conforms to the solicitation and represents the best value to the Government, price and non-price factors considered.

Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between proposed performance and price must be clearly explained in the price proposal. For example, if unique and innovative approaches are the basis for an apparently unbalanced or inconsistently priced proposal, the nature of these approaches and their impact on price must be completely documented. The burden of proof of price reasonableness rests solely with the Offeror.

ATTACHMENT A

CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN EXPERIENCE PROJECT DATA SHEET

Project No. (check one) : CON #1 CON #2 CON #3 CON #4 CON #5

DESIGN #1 DESIGN #2 DESIGN #3 DESIGN #4 DESIGN #5

1. Experience for: Offeror Joint-Venture Other (Explain)

Firm Name:

Address:

Phone Number:

DUNS Number:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain)

Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Number: Delivery/Task Order Number:

Title:

Location:

4. Award Date (mm/dd/yy): Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

5. Type of work:

New Construction Renovation Repair Alteration Other (explain):

6. Type of Contract/Task Order: (Check ALL that apply)

Firm-Fixed Price Cost/Time and Material Other (explain):

Complete Block 7 for Construction Projects. Complete Block 8 for Design Projects.

7. Construction Project:

Award Amount: Final Price:

Type of Contract/Task Order: (Check ALL that apply)

Design-Build Design-Bid-Build Delivery/Task Order (IDIQ) Other (explain):

If Design-Build,…